David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> @@ -3001,6 +3001,9 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>struct msr_data *msr_info)
>>> u32 msr = msr_info->index;
>>> u64 data = msr_info->data;
>>>
>>> + if (msr && (msr == vcpu->kvm->arch.xen_hvm_config.msr))
>>> + return xen_hvm_config(vcpu, data);
>>> +
>>
>>Can we generalize this maybe? E.g. before handling KVM and
>>architectural
>>MSRs we check that the particular MSR is not overriden by an emulated
>>hypervisor,
>>
>>e.g.
>> if (kvm_emulating_hyperv(kvm) && kvm_hyperv_msr_overriden(kvm,msr)
>> return kvm_hyperv_handle_msr(kvm, msr);
>> if (kvm_emulating_xen(kvm) && kvm_xen_msr_overriden(kvm,msr)
>> return kvm_xen_handle_msr(kvm, msr);
>
> That smells a bit like overengineering. As I said, I did have a play
> with "improving" Joao's original patch but nothing I tried actually
> made more sense to me than this once the details were ironed out.
This actually looks more or less like hypercall distinction from after PATCH3:
if (kvm_xen_hypercall_enabled(vcpu->kvm))
return kvm_xen_hypercall(vcpu);
if (kvm_hv_hypercall_enabled(vcpu->kvm))
return kvm_hv_hypercall(vcpu);
....
so my idea was why not do the same for MSRs?
--
Vitaly
